Re: Gemtacular Now Links to RDocs

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Chad Fowler wrote:

> On 1/18/07, Hugh Sasse <hgsdmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Or the rdoc options could he kept for if/when rdoc
is used, and
> > since this is YAML one could have an array of
alternative doc systems
> > and a corresponding array of of options.  Or maybe
a hash.
> > I'm not sure that one can assert YAGNI in this
case: we live in a
> > world with LaTeX, Lout and DocBook.
> >
> 
> I guess I disagree.  We can assert YAGNI for RubyGems
doc generation.
> If someone wants to do LaTex, that's fine.  They can
create another
> mechanism with which to do it.  I don't think we have
to extend
> RubyGems to allow for (or even encourage) divergent
documentation
> systems.  We certainly don't prevent them.

But leaving the facility out means that there's presently no
way to
leave options for how other docs should appear, in the
gemspec; or
is there?  I'm all for standardising on RDoc, but I think
things
should be kept open, extensible.  Someone may produce a
better Rdoc.
And someone may have good reasons for departing from Rdoc --
heavily
mathematical applications may need Mathml support or LaTeX
or...

One thing I've felt about Ruby itself is that it embodies
such
flexibility with the way you can add blocks in all sorts of
places,
and this gives great power...

> > On the gems homepage should there not be a link to
Gemtacular, now
> > that it has been blessed (erm, not in the Perl
sense...)?
> >
> 
> Yea.  It will become the RubyGems.org home page soon.

OK, I'd just lost it, and thought a link would be good for
now.
> 
> Chad
        Thank you,
        Hugh
_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
Rubygems-developersrubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-develope
rs